See http://community.logos.com/forums/p/70608/491642.aspx#491642 for how this was found. Note the incomplete results in the Cross-reference section.
<edit>We worked out the exact nature of the bug. If you want to jump to that post, it's here.</edit>
To clarify, most users are seeing this:
But it should look like this:
So there are two aspects to the bug report:
So there are two aspects to the bug report: Why is MJ seeing only Wisdom 10:3. Why most other users, despite owning NABRE, are not seeing Wisdom 10:3 at all.
Re: 2 this seems to be relative to the currently preferred bible, see http://community.logos.com/forums/p/70608/492143.aspx#492143
To summarise for the Logos engineers
excellent sleuthing. EDIT: I just checked my priorities which modifies the first statement in the summary:
EDIT: I just checked my priorities which modifies the first statement in the summary:
Modifies it in what way? According to my first statement, you should see OT and Apocrypha books with this prioritisation. Is that not the case?
Did I misunderstand in my rush to get out the door? The entry that messes everything else up is using the advanced features? Not that it matters as my prioritizations proves your point
The entry that messes everything else up is using the advanced features?
I said "that isn't using advanced prioritisation to limit it to only one resource". Your first advanced prioritisation limits to a Bible range, but is for any resource.
Not that it matters as my prioritizations proves your point
It does indeed. I nearly said, "If my theory is correct, MJ will be prioritising the Septuagint", but I doubted myself at the last moment.
To summarise for the Logos engineers The problem is definitely related to the most highly prioritised Bible
Thank you very much for the detailed detective work. I tried (quickly) to repro this on Thursday, but couldn't and shelved the bug for later, more detailed analysis.
Now that you've identified the problem, I've fixed it. The fix will probably won't be in Beta 9 (since we're past the cutoff for changes for that), but should be available in the subsequent release.
Thanks a lot Bradley!
Now that you've identified the problem, I've fixed it.
Thank you!
That was quick, especially on a Sunday! Thanks.
This will be fixed in 5.1 Beta 9.
We found a similar issue in the "Cross References" section in the Explorer tool. This will be fixed after Beta 9.
We found a similar issue in the "Cross References" section in the Explorer tool.
This will be fixed in 5.1 RC 1.
